Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2001BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 9, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review December 19, 2000 a. Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall Expansion- 925 Century Avenue North b. Lighting Ordinance Discussion Visitor Presentations Board Presentations Staff Presentations a. CDRB representation needed for the January 22, 2001 city council meeting. At this time, the item scheduled for review is the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall expansion. 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. o The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD '1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000 II. III. IV. Vo CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Absent Jon LaCasse Present Craig Jorgenson Absent Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Board member LaCasse moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes-All The motion carries. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 28th, 2000: Mr. Ledvina asked that the statement made by Planning Commissioner Milo Thompson have an introduction such as ":in a telephone conversation with Mr. Thompson" otherwise it reads as though he was present at the meeting. Board member LaCasse moved approval of the revised minutes of November 28th, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes-All The motion carries. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. CDRR -2- Minutes of 12-19-2000 VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Mounds Park Academy Addition--(2051 Larpenteur Avenue). Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner, gave the staff report for the city. Mounds Park Academy is proposing to build an addition between their school and the former school district building to the north. The proposed addition would have seven classrooms, a student commons room and a senior lounge. The proposed addition would be 12,600 square feet in area. It would be predominantly a one-story structure with a 1%-story-tall roof line over the senior lounge. The addition would have an exterior of brick and windows. The brick, window glazing and window frames would match the existing buildings. The shingled roof over the lounge matches the blue shingles on the existing school. The concern from the neighbors was regarding street traffic on Ruth Street to the west of the school and also on Larpenteur Avenue. In talking to the Maplewood Police officer that works this street, there appears to be any unusual problems. The student and teachers' population will not increase with the addition. Staff sees the proposed addition as a good enhancement to the school, and should not affect any neighbors adversely. Jack Buxell, from Buxell Architects, was present for the applicant. The exterior they are proposing is a continuation of the current brick and exterior products used in the current building. It should appear to be a seamless continuation of the existing building. The energy code does require a thicker roof so there will appear to be another line of glazing. There will be some landscaping added aroUnd the base of the building. The parent's association of the school has taken over the landscaping and is working on the project progressively with one of the horticulture instructors from the sChool. Mr. Ledvina asked what the plan was regarding the request for screening alOng the east property line in relation to the existing homes. There is new fencing that had been added in the fall in this area. Staff noted there is a mw of evergreens on the hill on the east end of the property. The north end of the property could use additional screening possibly evergreens would be beneficial to block the view of the addition from the neighbors. Mr. Shankar questioned if the elevator addition would match the remainder of the exterior. Mr. Buxell explained they know the mix of the brick and do not foresee any problems matching the same exterior brick color. Mr. Ledvina would like to see the conditions include a landscaping and the screening plan based on approval by staff. He also felt some type of temporary landscaping is needed me the parking lot islands :until more permanent landscaping is implemented with the overall school landscaping project that is underway. Mr. Buxell asked if staff would walk the site with the applicant and discuss landscaping plans. Mr. Ledvina felt consultation with staff would be appropriate and has proven to Work will in the past with other applicants. Mr. Shankar questioned the property lines on the zoning map. Staff responded in saying that they are requesting that the applicant combines both lots into one legal description (B2). Mr. LaCasse made motion for the community design review board to approve the plans date stamped approve the plans date-stamped November 17, 2000 for the proposed addition to Mounds Park Academy, based on the findings required by the code. The property owner shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner shall: Provide staff with evidence that their two properties have been combined into one legally-described lot. CDRB Minutes of 12-19-2000 -3- Review with staff the need for additional screening on the east side of the northerly building and of the proposed addition. The applicant shall provide screening as may be required by staff. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: Repair or replace any broken or missing parts of the wooden screening fence. Restore all ground that is disturbed by the proposed construction. Comply with previous landscaping-plan requirements. Provide screening on the east side of the site if required by staff. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 1% times the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may apProve minor changes. Mr. Shankar seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. B. Design Approval--Highpoint Ridge--(Highridge Court, south of County Road D). Mr. Ekstrand gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 18 twinhomes (36 units), in the Highpoint Ridge Development. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the front. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Parking shall be allowed on one side of the street to allow for visitor parking. The landscaping plan should be revised to specifically show all tree size. The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. Chairperson Ledvina asked if these exact plans have been built elsewhere by the applicant. Staff confirmed that they had. Mr. Ledvina also noted in reviewing the two pages of elevations, one page displayed horizontal lap siding on the front elevation above the garage doors and the other shows it as a faux shake. Staff explained the applicant wanted the option of two different styles of materials based on the preference of the buyer. Gordie Howe, of Masterpiece homes, the applicant was present. He explained that he will determine the siding used on the project, and is leaning toward the faux shake. He also stated 36 trees will be added, one for each unit. Mr. Shankar questioned the radius of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Howe explained the radius is 55 degrees, and has been reviewed by the city engineer to ensure trucks are able to turn around. Mr. Ledvina felt the base plantings were are very a nice feature, and was impressed it actually wraps around the entire building. In response to Mr. Shankars question about the porch, Mr. Howe explained the side elevations on the plans do not show a porch because it will be a feature that can be added as an option for the buyer. All of the lots were platted for decks. CDRB -4- Minutes of 12-19-2000 Mr. Ledvina asked if the developer is seeing a trend in homes with the garage sitting in front and the home behind, so all you basically see is the garage from the road? Mr. Ledvina also wondered if the owner has considered other types of building styles which would be more esthetic where the entrance to the building is more prominent as opposed to the garages? Mr. Howe explained One of his other developments have side loaded garages with windows on the side of the garage. The lots is this particular project do not allow enough space to have a building plan with this type of layout. Mr. Shankar made a motion for the community design review board to approve the plans date- stamped November 29, 2000 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Highpoint Ridge Twin homes. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, drainage, erosion control, tree and driveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2). The grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each building shall include building, floor elevation and contour information. (3) (4) All the parking areas and the street (Highridge Court) shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide street (Highridge Court). The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with no parking signs. bo Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ~) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (3) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped November 29, 2000, shall remain on the plan. (4) In addition to the above, all front, side and rear yard areas shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). (5) No landscaping shall take place in the County Road D boulevard and the boulevard shall be restored with sod. Co Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. CDRB -5- Minutes of 12-19-2000 do Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this part of the development. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas except for the area within the easement which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all the driveways. d. Put addresses on each building for each unit. e. Complete all landscaping for that building. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work, All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All MOtion carries. American Portable Telecom (VoiceStream Wireless)--(English Street and 1300 Gervais Avenue). American Portable Telecom (ATP) is proposing to replace an existing 165-foot tall monopole with a 175-foot tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They would be removing the existing pole after installing the new one. They would provide prefabricated equipment cabinets and equipment buildings near the base of the monopole. APT would expand their lease area from the 80X80 area to an 80X181 area. This would entail building a new driveway to the site from Gervais Avenue. The applicant would also enclose the new lease area with an eight-foot-tall chain link fence. The tower code does allow a 175-foot tall tower in a commercial or industrial area. The additional 10-feet would allow APT more opportunity for co-locators on the tower. Staff is recommending screening on the south side to soften it from the adjacent property and highway 36, and to preserve all existing trees on the north side. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit the :final color and materials to the staff for approval prior to receiving the building permit. Mr. Jim McGreevy, from Larkin, Hoffman, Daily, and Lindgren, 328 13th Avenue NE, Mpls., was present for the applicant. He explained the color of the tower would be a grey galvanized steel that would weather to a dull finish. The building exterior would be a brown exposed aggregate concrete. CDRB -6- Minutes of 12-19-2000 VII. VIII. All board members were pleased to see an applicant who was wanting to install a monopole tower that was tall enough to encourage co-locating. Boar member Shankar moved the community design review board to approve the plans date- stamped November 16, 2000, for a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and equipment on the property on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue). Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: (a) (b) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed driveway shall have a bituminous surface and shall be at least five feet away from the side property line. A landscape and screening plan that: (1) Helps to hide the base area of the proposed facility. (2) (3) Shows the preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Includes the planting of 8-foot-tall coniferous trees between the south side of the lease site and the existing parking lot. (c) (4) Shows the clean-up and the restoration of all turf areas with sod. This shall include the boulevard along Gervais Avenue and the area between the south side of the lease area and the existing parking lot to the south. A driveway, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site. (d) The plans for the equipment buildings that show exteriors with designs, colors and materials that are compatible with the existing buildings in the area. 3. The monopole shall be light gray. Mr. LaCasse seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None BOARD PRESENTATIONS - None CDRB -7- Minutes of 12-19-2000 IX. Xo STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Ananth Shankar will attend the January 8, 2001 city council meeting. B. The membership terms of the board members Ledvina, Johnson, and LaCasse end on January 1,2001. All will be renewing their terms except for Mr. LaCasse who has a new baby on the way. C. The first meeting for the new year will be Tuesday, January 9th. Mr. Shankar left the meeting at 6:55. MEETING ADJOURNED Meeting Adjourned at 7:07. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lighting Ordinance Review December 13, 2000 INTRODUCTION On July 11, 2000, the community design review board (CDRB) directed staff to study the city's site-lighting requirements based on site-lighting recommendations suggested by Ms. Tine Thevenin. Ms. Thevenin gave a presentation to the CDRB that evening about site lighting. MAPLEWOOD'S EXISTING SITE-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: Install exterior site lighting. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed from any residential area or public street. Ughting shall not exceed a . 4 footcandle of light intensity at a residential property line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for residential purposes. A site-lighting plan shall be submitted for all development applications that abut residential properties. DISCUSSION Ms. Thevenin discussed these points about site lighting: Purpose of Lighting · secudty · visibility Problems with Lighting · light trespass - nuisance to neighbors and drivers · money spent - costly to run lights all night · glare - causes discomfort, can be blinding, appears cluttered, can lead to confusion · skyglow · hinders secudty when improperly directed · confusing to birds, animals and insects Aspect of Good Lighting · Lights that illuminate only the area to be illuminated, not the sky or neighboring properties. How Can We Improve Maplewood's Ordinance? Ms. Thevenin's presentation was informative and useful for us in evaluating our present ordinance. The main points, however, still boil down to the purposes of site lighting and how we can accomplish this while not over lighting and causing nuisances for neighboring properties and drivers. Maplewood's current code addresses these issues. We presently require site lighting for secudty and for general night-time visibility. Our code requires that the light source be concealed to prevent nuisance light overspill. The current code also protects nearby residents since we require a lighting plan and specify a maximum light intensity. CONCLUSION Staff does not see a need to amend our site-lighting requirements. The CDRB should suggest changes if they would like staff to prepare amendments to this ordinance. p:or~ighflng.01 Attachment: Tine Thevenin's Brochure Attachment 1 xtu~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall 925 Century Avenue North January 3, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Gil Shipshock, of the Mounds Park/Oakdale Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall, is proposing to make the following changes at the Kingdom Hall, 925 Century Avenue North (refer to the maps and drawings on pages 8-12): Build a 1,120-square-foot addition onto the west end of the existing building. There would be a drive-under canopy on the end of the proposed addition as a protected drop-off area. The proposed addition would be brick to match the building. The canopy would be supported by wood columns and would have a metal fascia which would conceal rooftop mechanical equipment. Build a 24- by 24-foot, two-car garage to replace the small shed on the property. This garage would be brick with horizontal-lap metal siding on the gable ends above the soffit lines. The two-car garage would be used as parking for the minister who has a residence in the lower level of the existing building. Enlarge the parking lot by adding 17 more spaces south of the existing parking lot. Two would face west and 15 would face south. This parking lot extension would be curbed according to code. Close the southerly ddveway into the site. The north entrance would become two-way. Presently, the church uses the southerly neighbor's residential ddveway as a means to enter their site. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: A conditional use permit (CUP) for the church expansion. The city code requires a CUP for churches in any zoning district. Refer to the applicant's letter on page 13. This CUP would also allow the continuation of a nonconforming parking lot setback. The existing parking lot is five feet from the west lot line. The code requires 20 feet. 2. Plans for the project. DISCUSSION CUP The proposed church and parking lot expansion would not cause any negative effect for the neighbors as long as certain precautions are taken. Neighbors have expressed concern over the existing site lighting, a possible stormwater runoff increase and parking lot screening. Site Lighting The applicant stated, in his letter on page 14, that they propose to replace their parking lot lights with downward-cast fixtures. This type of fixture would eliminate light overspill onto neighbors' properties. The city code requires that the applicant provide a lighting plan (photometric plan) since they abut residential property. This plan should show the proposed lighting fixtures, the light intensity and the range of light cast. Neighbors also stated that the lights are on all night. The parking lot lights should not be on when they are not needed. The lighting plan should be submitted and approved by staff before the city issues a building permit. Stormwater Runoff The neighbors at 2701 and 2707 Brand Avenue expressed their concerns about stormwater runoff from the proposed parking lot. Refer to the letter on page 17 from Mr. and Mr. Stafsholt, the owners of 2707 Brand Avenue, and the letter from Jerry Hicks, Ms. Stafsholt's father, on pages 18-20. Mr. Hicks presented this letter to the planning commission on January 2, 2001. Chds Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, met with Ms. Stafsholt and Mr. Hicks regarding their concerns over the proposed drainage plan. Mr. Cavett outlined his comments and issues on pages 15-16. With the continued concerns about the drainage that are expressed in Mr. Hicks' letter, Mr. Cavett reviewed the proposal further. His comments are noted on pages 21-22. Mr. Cavett's conclusion is that the applicant's proposal appears to be an improvement over the existing condition and is an opportunity for the neighbors to work with the applicant to make their existing situation better. Parkinc~ Lot Screening Screening is an important concern for the neighbors to the south. The proposed parking lot would encroach toward their homes and headlight glare can be a nuisance. The city code requires that parking lots that abut residential properties be screened by landscaping or fencing that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque. The applicant is proposing 16 evergreen trees south of the proposed parking lot. These would not provide the required screening for many years. Staff is recommending that the applicant install a six-foot-tall decorative wood fence along the entire length of the proposed parking lot from the west edge of the westerly space to the proposed garage. The fence should be designed so not to impede stormwater runoff. The fence would replace the proposed 16 trees. One neighbor to the north stated that headlight glare from the existing parking lot is a problem for them. I looked at the existing screening on the north side of the parking lot. The north edge of the parking lot has a mature lilac hedge. There are also several mature evergreens in the yards to the north. The hedge only provides about 40 percent screening in the winter, but would 2 provide 100 percent screening the rest of the year. Substantial additional screening is not warranted on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant, however, should look into areas where supplemental screening could benefit this neighbor at 2704 Harvester Avenue. Building Design The proposed addition and garage would be attractive and the brick would match the existing building. Parking Spaces, Tmlfic Flow and Parking Lot Setback Pa~kina Soaces The proposal would meet the city's parking requirements. The city code requires that churches have one parking space for each four seats in the sanctuary. The floor plans show 144 seats. This would require at least 36 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 65. The parking lot must have at least two handicap-accessible parking spaces. The plans should show these as well as the elimination of the existing four handicap spaces that are located along the northerly driveway. These spaces must be omitted since this driveway will become a two-way drive. Traffic Flow The drive aisle under the proposed canopy is only wide enough to allow one-way traffic. The applicant should either post this as a 'one-way' direction for vehicles or provide a two-way, 24-foot-wide drive aisle between the handicap parking spaces and the median. Parkinq Lot Setback The existing parking lot has a five-foot setback from the west lot line. The code requires 20 feet from this residential neighbor. The proposed parking lot expansion would maintain the f'we foot setback from the west line. Staff sees no problem with this since it would have no impact on the adjacent property owner. It would abut a back yard and not affect the house. Extending this nonconformity is allowed through the CUP process as an expansion of nonconforming use. Staff feels that the applicant should plant three, six-foot-tall evergreen trees in the square-shaped grass area in the southwest comer of the parking IoL These trees would help soften the view of the parking lot from neighbor's house on the lot to the west. COMMITTEE ACTIONS January 2, 2001: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on pages 23-24 approving a conditional use permit for the Mounds ParlEOakdale Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall building and parking lot expansion proposal at 925 Century Avenue North. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction, renovations and improvements shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Site lights shall only be used when needed at night for services or other church functions. They shall not be on all night. Approve the plans date-stamped November 29, 2000 for the proposed expansion to the Mounds Park/Oakdale Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall and parking lot at 925 Century Avenue North. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner shall provide the following for staff approval: A site-lighting plan which shows the proposed lighting fixtures (a "shoe box' style fixture that fully conceals the lens and bulb is a preferred style), the light intensity (code limits the maximum light intensity to .4 foot candles at a residential property line) and the extent of light cast. b. A revised site and landscape plans showing: (1) A decorative wood fence to be placed on the south side of the proposed parking lot. This fence shall run from the west edge of the westerly space to the proposed two-car garage. The fence must be at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque according to code. Opening(s) shall be provided at the bottom of the fence so stormwater runoff is not impeded, if required by the city engineer. The applicant shall also review with staff the need for additional screening on the north side of the parking lot for the home at 2704 Harvester Avenue. The applicant shall provide any supplemental screening as may be required by staff. (2) Three six-foot-tall evergreen trees in the grass area in the southwest comer of the parking lot. (3) At least two handicap-accessible parking spaces and the elimination of the four handicap-accessible spaces from the northerly driveway. (4) A one-way traffic flow beneath the canopy, with signs posted accordingly, or provide a two-way, 24-foot-wide ddve aisle between the handicap parking spaces and the median. c. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the city engineer's approval. This plan shall address the comments and issues addressed by Chris Cavett in the staff report. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Provide continuous concrete curbing around any new portions of the parking lot. b. Restore all ground disturbed dudng this construction and provide all required landscaping and screening. c. Provide at least two handicap-accessible parking spaces. One must be van- accessible with an eight-foot-wide loading aisle. Handicap-parking signs are to be provided as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires. d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure if there will be any outdoor storage of refuse. The enclosure must match the building in color and materials and shall have a closeable gate that is 100 percent opaque. e. Provide site-security lighting as required by the city code and in accordance with the approved plan. The old site lights must be removed. f. Screen all new rooftop equipment from residential neighbors as required by the code. g. Provide a stop sign at the exit ddve onto Century Avenue. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 1% times the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the 28 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this property for their comment about this proposal. Of the 12 replies, four had no comment, six were in favor or expressed miscellaneous comments and two were opposed. In Favor/Miscellaneous Comments Remodeling! It really doesn't bother me if there is a fence on the south side of the proposed parking lot expansion to reduce car light shining south. Hopefully a bigger parking lot will reduce the number of cars parking on Brand Avenue. (Piekarski, 2722 Brand Avenue) 2. I see no negative impact. (Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue) 3. It is ok with me but I wonder about families right next to them. Might not be to good for them. Just a thought. (Sandberg, 2708 Harvester Avenue) I support the efforts of the church to improve their facility. They have indicated to me that the changes will result in separating our two properties which is very favorable to me. I also personally saw the wonderful improvements Jehovah's Witnesses made to their church at 270 W. Wheelock Parkway in St. Paul this summer showing the high quality of their work. (Osborne, 915 Century Avenue North) o Is the property zoned for commercial development? A fence is needed as headlights will shine in my living reom. Will the parking lot lights light up my back yard? What is the plan for water runoff? Is there a requirement for number of parking spaces per member?. Any reason why they waited until the previous owners of 2701 and 2707 Brand Avenue moved? Is relocation an option? They must have pretty deep pockets due to restrictions of their beliefs. (Deger, Walther, 2701 Brand Avenue) We live on the west side of the J.W. parking lot. Because the lighting was installed poody, our back yard is lit up as much as the parking lot. J.W. plans to cut some large pines which will increase the light even more. We would suggest professionally installed lighting that directs the light on the parking lot and is timed to be off when not needed. (Peck, 2695 Brand Avenue) Opposed I do not believe this should be approved. The traffic and lights in the parking lot on the church service times are already a problem. The car lights are constantly shining in our windows. Also there is a couple of large night lights that are on all night. They are a nuisance. They shine in our bedroom window all night. How much will our property depreciate! (Nelson, 2704 Harvester Avenue) 2. Refer to the letter on page 17 from Kevin and Angela Stafsholt and the letter on pages 18-20 from Jerry Hicks. Neighborhood Meeting Comments The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting on October 15, 2000. They included comments received from that meeting. Refer to page 14. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.35 acres Existing land use: Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall SURROUNDING LAND USES The Kingdom Hall property is surrounded by single dwellings with the exception of Century Avenue on the east. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R1 (single dwelling residential) Zoning: R1 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for churches in any zoning district. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 23-24. Application Date This application was received on November 29, 2000. City council action is required by January 29, 2001 to comply with state60 day rule. p:sec25/jehovahs, cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line and Address Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Addition Elevations 5. Garage Elevations 6. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Statement 7. Letter from the Applicant Regarding their Neighborhood Meeting 8. Chris cavett's Notes dated December 15, 2000 Describing Engineering Issues 9. Letter from Kevin and Angela Stafsholt dated December 16, 2000 10. Letter from Jerry Hicks date-stamped January 2, 2001 11. Chris Cavett's Response dated January 3, 2001 to Mr. Hicks' Letter 12. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 13. Plans date-stamped November 29, 2000 (separate attachments) ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 2 JEHOVAH'S ~I, WITNESSES KINGDOM HALL PROPERTY LINE AND ADDRESS MAP I [~ - 9 ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING PARKING LOT i EXISTING CHURCH :// ~ ,,. PROPOSED GARAGE PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION LU SITE PLAN l0 .[ ATTACHMENT,4 23'-3' NORTH ELEVATION '~'"'~--," 28'-0' A~Dn'ION 64' -0' Remove exlg ~d$. Replace /Mw un,ts · race br~ck [xtg face brai to remola. to motch axtg. m n L .L~.~ New Rem~e wdw Sf c~or Wdw. ~ & i"nox. Ill hr. SOUTH ELEVATION wall opng fo~ new door. 18'-0' DRIV~-UP CANOPY ~TENSIO~ TO CONG~ ROOFTOP MECH'L . Remove extg siding & / Replace w;th ne~ i~e-fin. / metM I~g ov~r. new Re~ extg ~w ~ / blda ~w Typ I R~e/ NeE ~t ~A~ / ' ~ ~ot~ d~ /~. ~ I ~ ~-¢~. ~t~ ~ (,) ,,. ,, II EMg F.~k ~~ ....... ~ I ~ I I I1~ ~-- ~L to ~. I~~l I I ~ I ~1 ~ ~ ~.s F~II I Ill I I I I III I III I1~ ~ ~. M~ ~ I III I ~ I III I III I~1 ~.-~. T~* ,. ,, ,'. · -, ,u ~, ,, . . ,.. , ~ w/~z~ ~ ~-~*~ ............ ~-M .... ~-~ N ~ 5 ~ : :: " ' T~I 2 ~'~ · w~ ~ TO ~T~ [~G '~-- ....................... EAST SIDE ELEVA~ON ' ~ST SIDE ELEVATION N~m, Foci AT~ACHM~NI ~ Metol S~dlng, Trim dr Foscio Nom°l 4' Foce Brick Vwrm~r Rowlock Cfi -- Brick C.dt. GARAGE ELEVATIONS 24'-0" -O"g'-O" g'-O" 2'x4' wood--, studs 0 16' o.c. ond 1/2' plywood Ihething. 4' ~lob floor .I doo~ 3'-0' x 6'-8 hollow metol sen~ce door. ~v~ 2" w~ he~ to m~ ~k ~. inte~ ~o ~h GARAGE FLOOR PLAN BUILDING ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 12 ATTACHMENT 6 November28,2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Tom: NOV 2 0 2000 The remodeling of the Mounds Park/Oakdale Kingdom Hall located at 925 Century Avenue is being proposed for two primary purposes: 1'. To make the facility compliant with all Minnesota Codes for Handicap accessibility. To accomPlish this We. need to' add rest roOms at grade level. This 'neCessitates the expansion to the west. 2. To make the facility more energy efficient in terms of HVAC, increased insulation, thicker side walls, and higher efficiency windows. We, also, will be adding a rain water garden area in what is now merely an open sodded area on the southwest portion of the property. As far as impact, relative to changes to the existing character of the area, we feel this will be nonexistent. The addition will be of the same Chicago used brick and Colonial architecture will be retained. The use and frequency of use will not change from what has been occurring for the last 30+ years. The site will be professionally landscaped and we feel that this will actually add to the beauty and preservation of the sites wooded nature. We look forward to working with the City of Maplewood during this remodel process. Best Regards --- . Gilbert L. Shipshock Chairman, Kingdom Hall Building Committee 13 ATTACHMENT 7 November 28, 2000 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Associate Planner CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Tom: This letter will serve as a recap of an Open House held at the Mounds Park/Oakdale Kingdom Hall located at 925 Century Avenue on October 15, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. The purpose of the Open House was to address any concerns the neighbors might have relative to our prOposed remodeling. We sent invitations to 28 fee owners and occupants of the surrOunding properties. Four individuals responded representing two properties. One neighbors concern was the amount of light generated by the parking lot fixtures. We planned to address this by going to new downward cast fixtures for the lot. The individuals indicated that this would be a satisfactory solution. The second concern was rain water run off directly to the south of the parking lot. This will be addressed by the rain water garden and a elevation plan was supplied to the homeowners' father, who expressed the concern, that shows the new elevations. This was mailed over three weeks ago and we have not heard anything back from him. No invitations were returned as undeliverable, so we are confident that all interested parties were contacted. Best Regards --- Gilbert L. Shipshock Chairman, Kingdom Hall Building Committee 14 ATTACHMENT 8 KINGDOM HALL - ENGINEERING ISSUES Chris Cavett December 15, 2000 Show drainage calculations with infiltration area being treated as a pond. Show that post-development runoff is not greater than the predevelopment runoff. Pond shall have an emergency overflow located in the center of the berm to ensure that any overflowing will be directed to the common property line between the properties to the soUth. The overflow swale and flow path shall be protected with permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat, Miramat of equal). Spillway into pond shall be protected with geotextile fabric and riprap. Construct small, gentle diversion swaleslberms along the south side of pond to divert as much runoff area from the south end of the property to the middle of the south property line, thus directing the drainage to the common property line between 2701 and 2707 Brand Avenue to the south. Construction and preparation of the rainwater garden/infiltration area must be addressed on the plans. From our experience it is very critical how the area and soils are treated. First, the basin area should be over excavated to allow for the placement of 8" to 12" of salvaged insitu topsoil (no salvaged topsoil should be placed in this area). Over excavate and scarify the subgrade soils to an additional depth of 12" to 18". Place salvage insitu topsoil into basin area and cover with 3" to 4" of shredded wood mulch. Note: It is recommended that excavation of the infiltration area be done with a toothed backhoe. Avoid any activities in the infiltration area that may compact the soils. Consider installing rock infiltration sumps below the topsoil elevation. Rock infiltration sump shall extend approximately 3 feet below the topsoil and be constructed of 1 ½" minus clean rock wrapped in Type 5, geotextile filter fabric (high porosity). Clean compost may be incorporated into the topsoil if topsoil is somewhat loamy. Method of vegetation (landscaping in basin area)? 15 Currently, runoff from the site flows towards the south, however, there are no formal drainage easements between the site and Brand Avenue. Because this is an existing condition, the city will not require an easement but we suggest that the applicant consider obtaining a 5 foot drainage easement at the common lot line from each of the two owners at 2701 and 2707 Brand Avenue. At a minimum, the applicant must obtain an affidavit from the two owners documenting that they understand drainage will flow from time to time along this common lot line. Please improve organization of plan sheets. Applicant shall submit comments from their geotechnical consultant as to the likelihood of ground water migration into the basements at 2701 and 2707 from the rainwater garden. ATTACHMENT 9 December 16, 2000 Re: Jehovah's Witnesses Expansion We have the following.comments: We are dissatisfied with the site plan that was sent to Brand St. due to the lack of explanation regardingthe land: We appreciate that Chris met with myself and my father, to help bring light to some questions we had regarding these p.lansi We do have some concerns with the.water garden that is proposed.to beaddecton the Kingdom Hall land. It is to our understanding that the rate-of-flow cannot: be increased from the Kingdom Hall, property to.the adjacent properties: According ~.~ plans we received, the rate-of-flow is being increased.. Another worry is the saturatioo the land where the water is plamaed to be contained in the rain garden. Our concern is that this water woulct naturally flow towards the_wetland within Mapt~svood Nature_ Center. Since our house is betweenthe wetland and the rain. garden anctourbasementA~.~.~ approximately 840 feet lower tha~ the rain garden, our fear isthat the water willflow into our basement creating anew. rain garden. Currently, we.do have water problems :in our basement. We fear that since the water is purposely being directed towards property, the water could cause further damage to our basement.. We do understand that even though we donor agree with the direction of-tbe water run,off and the increase-of dope, we would like to meet-somewhere in the. middle_ As discussed with Chfis~ we would like a 6" berm added to the water garden areaon thy southeast side of the'lot; This would help direct water to flow in between 2707 & 2701," the proposed area- for over flow water run os Another concern of om-sis the 12 new parking spaces facing direclty south towards 2707 & 2701 We have no dispute with the additional parking spaces, as long as there is an 80% solid; 6,foot tall structure on the south side of the lot. To our understanding, this is code in the city of Maplewood so this should not be a problem, There is not existing foliage or a fence currently'on' the south edge of'the lot. lfthercJs' not an 80% solid, 6 foot tall structure ad&dm the developmentofthe south edge of the Kingdom Hall !and, Ihen there should notbe 12.new parking spaces added facing sou_thl If these spaces were added- without this' structure, the headlights-of the vehicles parl~ingi_n those spaces would glare directly into the homes of 2707 &-270t, which we consider an.. · invasion of our privacy..To our knowledge, when thcparldnglot-was done previouslY;. the then owners of 2701 requested that there be nospaces-facing south due to.tMlight.:.: illumination from the-vehicles. This was taken irtto-consideration, hence there being rm current spaces facing south. We would like the sameconsiderafion with todaf_s proposed plan. As mentioned before, the best idea would be to add a fence like stmctm~_ to the south side of the lot. Thank you for. taking the time tolisten to our concerns and we would tike to aga/n thank Chris and Tom for answering our questiom._ Kevin & Angela Stafsholt 2707 Brand St, 17 ATTACHMENT RECEIVED JAN 0 2 2001 10 Kevin and Angela Stafholt Response to Jehovah Witness Church Expansion Application January 2, 2001 ' My name is Jerry Hicks and I am the father of Angela and the father in law of her husband, Kevin. They reside at 2707 Brand Ave E., abuting the church property to the south. I have worked for the 3M company for over thirty years in Engineering. I also just finished up over I 1 years on the townboard of Stillwater township and had 3 years on the planning commission before that. I do have knowledge of what this government process is and of reviewing applications such as before you tonight. A little history of the Angela and Kevin's home as I understand it to be. It was built in about 1951 but the person it was built for never moved in. It was bought several years later by a couple that never had children and lived there until their deaths. Kevin and Angela bought this house from their estate. It is obvious that this was one of the first homes on this street and was certainly there before this church. I recommended, upon my inspection, that Kevin and Angela buy this house because of it's location within Maplewood, it's history, and it's condition. Besides that, my wife and I owned a home very similar to this in north Maplewood in the Gladstone area about 2 blocks north of your old city hall. During my inspect/on I noticed the basement had been wet in the past and, in fact, a sump tank had been installed in the basement floor. The tile on the floor is curling up and there is a discoloration of the basement wall at the floor. There is also.a depression in the concrete floor, around the sewer line cleanout, that water was standing in. Even though I soaked up this water, it came back. The "broker" selling the house said he lives just across the street and his house was built on swamp that was filled in nest to the Maplewood Nature Center. His sump is running full time and this basement was dry compared to his. I looked outside and noticed that the roof had rain gutters installed on all of the drip edges and extensions were installed on all the downspouts. I noticed that they back yard was slopping from up on the church property to the basement wall. I suggested that some landscaping would have to be done around the basement to help drain the runoff from this slope. Before you tonight is an application for this church to add on to their building and to redo and expand their blacktop parking lot. Angela and Kevin do not have a problem with this but have a problem with the residue of the expansion. It is obvious that the existing parking lot currently drains onto this sloping area towards their house. The new expanded parking lot is purposely being 18 contoured and curbed to drain in that direction as shown by the prints. A pond or "rain garden" is being constructed to hold this drainage and allow the water to percolate into the groun& A "rain garden", per my understanding, is to cleanse the water before it is discharged down the storm sewer or, in this case, into the backyards of two homes. Using the gardens that were installed in the ditches along Brand Street as an example, the runoff flows horizontally thru the garden, stripped of it,s fertilizer and pollutants and then flows into a drainage pipe, eventually arriving in a lake cleaner than before. This proposal is not the fight application for a "rain garden". The proposed "rain garden" for the church is nothing more than a small holding pond because the water does not flow horizontally. It will collect about 24,000 gallons of water and hold it until it soaks into the ground vertically. It will catch sediment from the parking lot and, eventually, will fill up with sand and debris until it will not hold any water. Where does this 24,000 gallons of water go when it percolates into the ground? Let's look at what is known Kevin and Angela's house has a wet basement and is about 10 feet lower than the existing church parking lot, the broker's house across the sweet has a continually running sump pump and was built on a swamp, and the Maplewood Nature Center is behind his house. Without having soil samples, I can only come to the conclusion that ground water will flow towards other water and that is to the nature center. That is toward the basements of all the houses between the church and the standing water a few hundred feet away. The new parking lot will be about 22,000 square feet of asphalt, ffthere was a rainfall of about 1 3/4 inches, the pond would be full. A 2 year storm event is 1 1/2 inches per hour which will produce about 21,500 gallons of runoff. A 10 year storm event is 4.2 inches per hour or 60,100 gallons. A 100 year event is 6 inches per hour and will produce 86,000 gallons of runoff. These calculations only take into consideration of the parking lot and not the 13,000 square feet of green sloping area~ You can add another 60 percent to these runoff figures. Question: What is the minimum design for storm water runoff control on parking lots? Is it different for chumhes? Intentionally directing runoff toward residents is not the answer and puts the home owners in peril. Angela and Kevin's basement, if flooded, would hold about 47,000 gallons and that is about 1/3 of the runoffcreated from a 100 year storm on the parking lot and the green sloping area. Snow plowing accumulation is another problem.' Currently, there are at least two piles of snow 6 to 8 feet high and 2 to 3 foot windrows. This is all plowed to the south edge of the parking lot. This year alone we have already had over 30 inches of snow, which contains 1 inch of water to every 10 to 12 inches of snowfall. That is about 2 1/2 to 3 inches of water ready to melt. Where 19 does that water go when the ground is frozen? Maybe the church should be required to haul the snow away within 3 days of a snowfall. Now is the time to correct a problem that was created when this parking lot was originally installed. With the expansion, it will only get worse and the homeowners are the ones that will have a problem. This church should not be treated any different than your neighborhood businesses nor should the residents have any less protection by the city from possible damage by runoff. Have the church protect the residents by directing the water to the center of the parking lot and be drained to a storm sewer. Possibly have them contour the lot so all runoff will go down their driveway towards Century and then into the ditch. Have the snow removed after a significant snowfall. Thank you for your firr)e. 20 ATTACHMENT ll To: From: Subject: Date: Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engneer Response to Points in Mr. Hick's Letter January 3, 2001 With the continued concerns about the drainage being expressed by the Resident at 2707 Brand Avenue, Mr. Cavett has reviewed the proposal more in depth. There are a few important facts that should be noted here: There is an existing area of land, (approximately 0.8 Acres), that currently flows towards the properties at 2701 & 2707 Brand Avenue. Based on the characteristic of the terrain, that is likely the same condition that existed when the home at 2707 Brand Avenue was originally constructed. 2. 100% of the existing runofffrom this subject area has always drained away, unabated to the south and towards the homes on Brand Avenue. The applicant has not proposed to add additional area to this mini-subwatershed. Approximately 50% of the existing area is currently a paved parking lot. The proposal is to increase the parking area to approximately 60% of the subject area. With that proposal, they have also proposed a rainwater garden on the property which will now capture 75% of the area, (approximately 0.6 Ac), that has always flowed to the south. Twenty five percent of the remaining area, (approximately 0.2 Ac), will still continue to slope towards the south, however the applicant has agreed to direct any sheet drainage away from the homes and towards the common flow line between 2701 & 2707 Brand Avenue. At that location it will continue to Brand Avenue where there is a rainwater garden and drainage system that will take any excess flow away. In simple terms; The rate runoff and volume off runoff for most all rainfall events will now be reduced. The rainwater garden will be able to capture, store and infiltrate in excess of 1.5" of rainfall. Under large events, the runoff that must overflow the garden area, will now be directed to the common lot line of 2701 & 2707 Brand Avenue. Under current conditions ALL runoff has flowed unabated to the south and towards the homes on Brand Avenue. The question always arises; why the drainage can't just be piped away? Piping away the flow into a storm sewer is an impractical and nearly unfeasible option here. The only storm sewer in the area is located within Century Avenue, it is undersized and is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. If Mn/DOT were to allow the applicant to connect to their storm sewer, they would not be allowed to exceed pre- existing runoff rates. That option would also require a nearly unfeasible and much larger detention facility. The storm sewer in Century Avenue also outlets into a ditch which is adjacent to another Maplewood resident who has experienced flooding on their property in the past. Irresponsibly adding to that flow could worsen that situation. 21 Indiscriminately piping storm water away goes against Maplewood's and the Watershed's philosophy of attempting to keep water on-site and as close to the point where it falls. o The resident has expressed concerns about groundwater and wet basements. Under City Project 98-10, Harvester Area Streets, the city had actually done a soil boring directly in front of 2707 Brand Avenue. The boring extended to a depth of 16-feet below the road, (approximately 10 feet below the basement floor at 2707 Brand). No ground water was observed in the boring hole at that time, (March 1999). Most often wet basement problems can be attributed to grades around the foundation. In this case, the home at 2707 has always existed down grade from the church. During a rainfall event, runoff and the water in the saturated topsoil layer flows south and towards the homes on Brand Avenue. The applicant's proposal appears to be an improvement over the existing condition and an opportunity for the neighbors to work with the applicant to make their existing situation better. 22 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION Attachment 12 WHEREAS, Mounds Park/Oakdale Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall applied for a conditional use permit for a church including their plans to expand their building and parking lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 925 Century Avenue North. The legal description is: LOT 4, BLOCK 3, AND THE WEST 200 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 3, MIDVALE ACRES. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE #341392. PID # 25-29-22-41-0059 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On January 2, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city council approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Site lights shall only be used when needed at night for services or other church functions. They shall not be on all night. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001.